Cymes v. Cymes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cymes v. Cymes

235 A.D.2d 312, 653 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 502

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 23, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 312 (Cymes v. Cymes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cymes v. Cymes, 235 A.D.2d 312, 653 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 502 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County [313]*313(Elliott Wilk, J.), entered January 6, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion for a downward modification of the court’s March 28, 1994 child support order, and order of the same court and Justice, entered November 6, 1995, which, inter alia, distributed the parties’ marital property, sequestered defendant’s share as collateral for payment of her child support obligation, directed defendant to pay plaintiff’s counsel fees, declared funds in an IRA account to be marital property, and ordered defendant to pay each child $25,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly determined that defendant failed to establish the existence of a change of circumstances sufficiently substantial to warrant a downward modification (Matter of Sturgeon v Sturgeon, 110 AD2d 1013). Based upon defendant’s failure to disclose required financial information (22 NYCRR 202.16 [k] [5]), the court properly imputed income to her, which brought the award of child support well within the child support guidelines set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b). The award of attorney’s fees was also a proper exercise of discretion (DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be either not properly before this Court or without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County [313]*313(Elliott Wilk, J.), entered January 6, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion for a downward modification of the court’s March 28, 1994 child support order, and order of the same court and Justice, entered November 6, 1995, which, inter alia, distributed the parties’ marital property, sequestered defendant’s share as collateral for payment of her child support obligation, directed defendant to pay plaintiff’s counsel fees, declared funds in an IRA account to be marital property, and ordered defendant to pay each child $25,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly determined that defendant failed to establish the existence of a change of circumstances sufficiently substantial to warrant a downward modification (Matter of Sturgeon v Sturgeon, 110 AD2d 1013). Based upon defendant’s failure to disclose required financial information (22 NYCRR 202.16 [k] [5]), the court properly imputed income to her, which brought the award of child support well within the child support guidelines set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b). The award of attorney’s fees was also a proper exercise of discretion (DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be either not properly before this Court or without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 312, 653 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cymes-v-cymes-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack